256 Who Put The Tree In The Garden? Prt. 1

This is part one of this two part series looking at how the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil came to be in the Garden. Was God trying to trick Adam and Eve or Test them? What is Free Choice and do we actually have the freedom to choose? What are the natural consequences of such choices?

Click on the link below for the pdf document.

SHOW NOTES

The Origin of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden.

This is a follow up of podcast #245 where the results of eating from this tree were examined. The major result observed was the belief that God is dualistic, being both loving and vindictive, both good and evil. It was this false picture of God which was introduced by the serpent into the minds of Adam and Eve at the tree. This false

understanding condemned man to fear God and desire to be free of him. Jesus had to come to dispel this false understanding.

In this podcast we examine how this tree came to be in the garden.

1. The concept of choice

Choice: A choice is the act, opportunity, or power of selecting one or more options from a set of possibilities. It encompasses both the decision-making process and the specific outcome or range of options available. (AI)

There are situations where choice is not available. I, for instance, did not choose my gender, parents or home language. I am happy without having had any choice in these areas. Not all people are happy with their birth options. There are children who disown parents. Some change their gender. One can forget a home language with time. I did not need these choices or options.

Freedom of choice means the power to make decisions and the freedom to act as an autonomous agent, uncoerced by external forces. (AI)

The addition of the adverb “free” implies the absence of coercion for choosing any of the options. There are always consequences, but these reside in the nature of the option chosen. Which household detergent I buy has no coercion attached by the seller. There are some detergents which are more powerful that others, but this is consequence of their composition.

If I choose to ignore a red traffic light, I might get t-boned and killed. This is not coercion but an inherent, possible consequence. The fine for ignoring the light is coercion. If there is coercion for any option chosen it means it is a forced choice. It is no longer a free choice. Paying tax is an example of a forced choice.

Are we free to choose our destiny?

Christians are divided on the issue. Some believe we can, others believe

God has created some to be His friends forever and others to be damned forever. Those who believe God can damn some to eternal punishment believe that he is the Sovereign of the Universe and to question His decisions is impertinence.

Some read the Bible and conclude that humans are going to hell or heaven. That is a choice, but hardly a free choice when heaven is a reward and hell is a punishment. Only if these destinations are consequences, can free choice exist. There is no freedom if God, at the end of the day, executes all those who choose an alternative lifestyle to the one He has prescribed (1 Corinthians 13:5). Many justice-supporting and liberty-loving people reject the notion of the Judeo-Christian God for this very reason. The concept of a just God destroying those who choose another way of living, even though they have been warned, is unfair and smacks of Stalinism.

Behavioural scientists run clinical and behavioural experiments to increase their understanding about the mechanism of human and animal choice making. We are fascinated by accounts of horse whisperers and elephant whisperers and their understanding of how animal choices are influenced.

At the same time, we know that some experiments are immoral or unkind. These are avoided in a humane society. Good parents do not leave money lying around to test or develop a child’s honesty. Good parents do not make street drugs or pornography available for adolescents to provide them choice. They have enough other positive

choices to make.

While monitoring for conformity may be acceptable such as placing cameras to record traffic violations it is not ethical to use cameras to record private, human activity.

It is because God created us with freedom of choice that his system is based on faith not fact. Facts can be coercive when it comes to choices.

Proof gives a person no way of retreat. Faced with incontrovertible proof, the person who is in his or her right mind will have to surrender even if yielding happens against his or her will. Jesus offers evidence but not proof, in part because the indisputable proof can be a form of compulsion. In God’s economy, it is possible to say no without seeming to be out of one’s mind. Assent must be freely given, and it must be given in response to manifestations that are not coercive.

Sigve Tonstad, God of Sense and Traditions of Nonsense, p 333.

When we attribute free choice to God’s creation we mean that he will not prevent the suggestion of alternative lifestyles and will not coerce those who chose an alternate lifestyle. If God did he could be rightly indicted as an abuser or manipulator.

2. The state of the original garden

The story of creation as narrated in Genesis was told for thousands of years before it was recorded by Moses.

Both the telling and the recording are in hindsight. For example, Genesis (2:10-14) uses names for the Eden rivers that were used after the Noachian flood.

The creation was pronounced “very good” by the Creator (Genesis 1:31). This is followed up by this confirming statement “now the man and the woman were both naked. But they felt no shame” (2:25). This pronouncement demonstrates that sexuality and procreation were present without any negative connotations. It is also the prelude

to the nakedness revealed by sin when Eve and Adam eat of this tree’s fruit (3:7).

Jesus confirms this pristine state with his statement;

The thief comes only to steal, kill and destroy. I have come to give you abundant life (John 10:10).

We must take this statement as normative for the origins of abundant life and stealing, killing and destroying.

Whenever there is abundant life Jesus has been at work. Whenever there is stealing, killing and destroying the serpent or the thief has been at work. There is no dualism in the God Jesus described.

James 1:13-14 states that God does not temp and cannot be tempted. This excludes the possibility that God would facilitate temptation in his good garden.

The assumption that God created a space in the garden where a choice had to be made when all was joy and happiness is to discount God’s heart of love. There was no need for options might lead to sorrow and suffering.

Creating choices which could lead to temptation and the possibility of failure is mean and cruel. There must be more to the story than a simple attribution to God of placing this tree in the garden.

Death was not part of the original garden and this means the cause of death was also absent. Temptation and death came later.

3. The presence of evil arises in the garden

There was no evil or death in the garden at its creation. The narrative included the temptation of Eve by the serpent (Genesis 3) but does not include the origin of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or the Serpent.

In retrospect it states this tree and the serpent were in the garden. The presence of the evil serpent came after the creation of the garden and the creation of Adam and Eve. It was the serpent who brought the temptation not a tree that God had created.

Who planted this tree in the garden? Perhaps this is the wrong question. It might be that it was a regular tree and the difference was that Satan was allowed to be present in this one tree. He was given access at only one tree among thousands.

The serpent’s access to Adam and Eve was restricted to this tree. The tree must have been named in retrospect as evil would have been an unknown concept at this point.

Thousands of years later Jesus will describe the evil one as follows: Satan has desired to sift you like wheat. He wants to show the chaff in your character and embarrass you enough to destroy you (Luke 22:31-32).Eating ONCE from this tree resulted in long term chaos for the planet. It parallels a parasitic invasion of the body.

If not dealt with it will destroy the body. Morally a ONE-night stand has the potential to destroy a long-term relationship immediately and forever.

The Tree of Life apparently had to be eaten from on a regular basis. It was not a ONE bite effect. This is why Adam and Eve had to leave Eden. They could have ended up being immortal sufferers as postulated in an ever- burning hell.

Order or harmony is the result of continuous maintenance by those involved. It is a higher state than the descent into chaos or pain.

4. The entrance of evil into the garden

The narrative in the first two chapters of Job hint at the possible origin and entrance of the temptation to evil in the garden. Following the Job narrative, it is not far-fetched to surmise the Shattan challenged God on his hyper protection of Adam and Eve against his, Shattan’s, alternative life-style. In a universe premised on love and freedom this is a catch 22 situation for God. He grants Shattan access to Adam and Eve at only one tree out of thousands. It is the vulnerability of love. Love does not demand its own way (1 Corinthians 13:5).

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

Genesis 2:8-17 NLT Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he placed the man he had made. 9- The Lord God made all sorts of trees grow up from the ground—trees that were beautiful and that produced delicious fruit. In the middle of the garden he placed the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

15 The Lord God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it. 16 But the Lord God warned him, “You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden—

17 except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.”

When the tree is labelled, “The tree of the knowledge (Hb. Yada) of good and evil” it is suggesting that if one ate of this tree, one would experience evil in addition to good. In Genesis 4:1 Adam knows (Hb. yada) Eve and she conceives a son. This implies the “knowing” this tree provided was experiential rather than cognitive.

I have cognitive insight into pedophilia, but I have no experience. I have cognitive insight into drinking alcohol or using recreational drugs, but I have no experience of these practices. These activities are not about cognitive knowledge or understanding, but experience.

A prohibition against eating from this tree would make sense. God did not want man to experience evil.

Various explanations are given for this tree being in the garden.

A. The tree was to assess Adam and Eve’s loyalty.

If so, this was a moral test and so was a temptation. This solution implies God is tempting Adam and Eve to do wrong or sin by placing this tree in the garden. This contradicts James’ assertion that God never tempts (1:13). It can be argued that God did not do the tempting but he was culpable if he made the tempting possible. It is not fair to set a moral test for a spouse, a child or a parent. This is to violate the relationship. It happens but it is morally wrong because it is assumed that the test will be failed.

Unless, God does not force his own way on beings in his universe (1 Corinthians 13:5).

B. The tree was placed there as a blessing.

The argument that is was a blessing is based on the tree being a reminder to Adam and Eve that God was not the source of Good and Evil. This concept was reinforced by the prohibition against eating from the tree. Not eatingwas a faith statement that only good came from God. Their loyalty was demonstrated by eating from the Tree of Life and not eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The is arguments can be used to justify having street drugs available to teenagers. If they refuse them, it is a blessing. However, this is weighting the outcome in favour of failure.

Both trees affected them only as they ate from them. Cognitive knowledge is not in consideration but experiential knowledge. The trees implied and invited an existential experience. For addictive substances, evil is one of these, this is not a fair test. The addict loses the power of choice once the addiction takes hold.

If Adam and Eve had not eaten of the fruit the tree could have been viewed as a blessing but they ate and it brought the curse of sin and death.

C. A third possibility is that the Tree if the Knowledge of Good and Evil was demanded in the garden by the devil who wanted access to Adam and Eve.

While this option is not documented in a parallel situation he demanded access to Job to demonstrate his Job’s perfidy (Job 1 & 2).

We also have examples of such impositions on God by the devil in laws for divorce, slavery, war, monarchy, and diet. These laws were not inspired by God but were forced on God by the desires of his people against his wishes.

God is not a benevolent dictator and must work with all his creation. He loves his enemies and treats them with grace (Matthew 5:43-48). Love also does not demand its own way (1 Corinthians 13:5) and thus allows for alternative choices no matter how costly to love.

Love cannot have its own way all the time as it then becomes abuse. Love to be love must be transparent and vulnerable. The cross is the greatest evidence that God is vulnerable. He became subject to deicide at our hands

5. The consequence of evil enticement in the garden

One bite of the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil had long term consequences (Genesis 2:16-17) whereas one nibble from the Tree of Life has only a short-term effect. It had to be eaten from repeatedly to maintain life in perpetuity (Genesis 3:22-24).

The are the only two named trees in the garden. The tree of Life indicated that God was the giver and maintainer of life (John 10:10). The other tree represented the belief that both good and evil come from God. Eating from it

means one has subscribed to a dualistic God.

The Serpent makes this dualism plain when he says, “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil” (Genesis 3:5 NLT). “Knowing” is from the Hebrew yada which implies experience rather than information. The serpent is implying that God experiences both good and evil in himself.

This picture of God results in an unhealthy fear of God and a suspicion that he does not always have one’s best interests at heart. This means one must negotiate the favour of God with acts of penance and sacrifice to please him to ensure a happy life. The foundation of opposition to the kingdom of love is now laid down. It becomes the

ethos of the Kingdom of this World. It is so cunningly conceived that it will require God in Jesus Christ to come and reveal the true Kingdom of God thousands of years later.

This false picture of God has permeated human perception to this very day. Jesus, it seems, is the only one who knew this picture to be false. He came to correct the picture of his Father and give us the truth about the Father’s heart.

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and Reward and Punishment

To date, Nathan French has offered the most extensive overview of the various scholarly interpretations in the history of research chapter found in the published version of his doctoral dissertation, wherein he contends for an interpretation of this term as "the knowledge for administering reward and punishment," suggesting that the

knowledge forbidden by Yahweh and yet acquired by the humans in Genesis 2–3 is the wisdom for wielding ultimate power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil.

To this very day most Christians see heaven as reward and hell as a punishment. This illustrates the extent to which the idea that God is dualistic and works by reward and punishment is ingrained in the very heart of popular theology. This view of God leads to prayers that beg God to do good for us. In our misunderstanding of God we believe we are kinder than God. Any kindness we ever conceive is a reflection of God’s kindness. God is much kinder than all of us put together. The apostle John, a son of thunder transformed to the beloved disciple understands the situation and writes as follows:

1 John 4:18-19 NLT Such love has no fear, because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his perfect love. 19 We love each other because he loved us first.

6. The restoration of the pristine garden

There is an abundance of the Tree of Life on both sides of the River of Life (Revelation 22:2) in the New Earth. There is no mention of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This confirms that the problem was not a tree but an invading supernatural being who was intent on cultivating rebellion against the love of God for created

beings.

Since this being has ceased to exist because of the lake of fire there is no Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. There are many trees but no beguiling serpent to poison the picture of God’s character from one tree. That matter has been solved by the cross and the showdown between love and selfishness at the end of the millennium.

The end reflects the beginning. The garden was made perfect and was later invaded by an evil being who was restricted to one visible tree. The claims made by this being against God have played themselves out against the backdrop of God’s other-centred, self-sacrificing, unconditional love. The universe watched and the universe voted for God. The universe is convicted by the love of God and is eternally secure for this reason.

Hallelujah. Amen.

Ian Hartley, June 2026